Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiFAQ


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer T  01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiFAQ
NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep seems important. -- JJay 03:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Inportant how, exactly? Because WP:WEB and it's whopping 177 articles dissaggree.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: You should have stated that with your nom. Given your track record (numerous speedy keeps) and complete failure to present a case for deletion, you left me no other choice but to seek to prevent the possible harmful loss of valuable information that might result from a reckless or foolhardy AfD nomination. -- JJay 09:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, given my track record? You clearly haven't a clue of which you speak.  All my AfDs are good faith.  Simply insinuating they are not based on nothing and then ignoring standards to spite me?  We all need to invest in some more wikilove.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention your faith did I? I mentioned that you have repeatedly nominated and then speedily kept numerous articles that should never have come close to AfD. I won't list them here. I also won't discuss your habit of speedy deleting articles that do not fall within speedy guidelines. However, given that past history, I naturally tend to view you noms with some skepticism, particularly as you feel it is below you to justify them. -- JJay 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A half dozen questioned deletes out of more than 1600 is not a "habit," and the accusation is unfounded and bordering on PA. Three reversals, coincidentally on the same day, out of 13 months of nominating articles is not a track record. You are judging a book based on the first few paragraphs, where you shouldn't be judging at all.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm judging based on what I saw in the last few days. I thought, based on your noms, that you were a new user. I stand corrected. -- JJay 01:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So you not only judged me unfairly, you didn't even bother to check out my user page or past contributions or logs (where you would have seen that not only am I not new, I am an admin)?--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going by all those noms of the last day or two. I now know that I was being quite unfair. I take back and humbly apologize for my remark about your track record. That was wrong, and might be misconstrued as a personal attack. However, given that you are an admin, can you please end what is starting to look like a mockery of a farce at Articles for deletion/Czech resistance to Nazi occupation and Articles for deletion/Leticia Moreno. Also, thanks for reversing (speedily keeping) your other recent noms. I respect your character. -- JJay 02:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The former I have speedied. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the speedy keep on Articles for deletion/Czech resistance to Nazi occupation. You are a true gentleman and scholar. Furthermore, it is probably best to remain cautious on Articles for deletion/Leticia Moreno as the voting could still go either way and it may yet prove to be another in the unending series of classical music vanity scams I keep hearing about. -- JJay 08:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rest assured, the sarcasm of all your resposes here are frankly appaling. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm? I won't accuse you of making personal attacks, but can't you have the good grace to accept a compliment or an apology? -- JJay 10:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being a wiki does not procure notability. --Apostrophe 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. The Site exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My son has a website (hosted by my email provider) and it is verifiable. So what? mikka (t) 23:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oooh, I exist, for that matter. And it's verified!  Who wants to write my article (so I can speedy it)?  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By this standard every website on the internet should have a wikipedia entry. Agnte 11:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As an inclusionist Wikipedian, I'd have no problem with that. jc.
 * Woah, then you're the most hardcore inclusionist i've come across, congrats :) Agnte 17:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Dunno about that but thanks anyhow! *G* Seriously, if the article is verifiable, not scurrilous (spelling!!!), not obviously POV, I cant see what harm its doing by existingJcuk 21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Jeffrey, ah, but can we verify you exist by the guidelines set out in Wikipedia for doing so?! *G* Jcuk 17:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I could be a hoax... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * del. nn website. mikka (t) 23:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN website, does not meet WP:WEB Agnte 11:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete utetrly nn.  Grue   14:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:WEB --Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The wiki community benefits from more wiki's gaining visibility within the community, thus i see no problems with it. Jeff, I notice you went through the entire Category:MediaWiki websites and marked most for delition. My guess is these sites only help to spread the proverbial word and improve the code that wikipedia runs on. - MEP
 * Delete - "WikiFAQ states that they hope that by..."  How about telling us about what WikiFAQ has done for us lately rather than what they want to do.  Endomion 07:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.